Battle on the High Seas: Federal Court Declares President Biden’s OCS Withdrawals to Be “Unlawful”

The Louisiana Case is the first to reach the merits of the president’s power to withdraw and/or reinstate areas of OCS from leasing. The plaintiffs broadly argued that Section 12(a) of OCSLA was unconstitutional. But, the court issued a narrower opinion — holding that the Biden Memoranda “exceed the authority granted under § 12(a)” to the extent that the failure to specify an expiration date for the withdrawals was “supposed to overcome the power of subsequent executives to revoke or modify their withdrawals.”¹ In so ruling, the court found that the “from time to time” statutory language in Section 12(a) of the OCSLA indicates that future administrations have power to reverse or modify withdrawals.² The court also relied on similar withdrawals by presidents prior to Presidents Barack Obama or Biden that included expiration dates or acknowledged that they were subject to review or change by later administrations. In contrast, the court found that the Biden Memoranda purported to apply for “a period of time without specific expiration.” Any reading of the Biden Memoranda that included this indefinite time period violated presidential authority under OCSLA because its inclusion purports to “overcome the power of subsequent executives to revoke or modify their withdrawals.”³

The decision in the Louisiana Case conflicts with a 2019 ruling by a federal court in Alaska, which held that only Congress can restore properties to the leasing mechanism after a Section 12(a) withdrawal. In that decision, the court reasoned that Congress was explicit when giving the president authority to modify or revoke federal land withdrawals in other, non-OCS contexts, and that the failure to do so in the OCSLA reflected Congress’ reservation of that power unto itself.⁴ Because the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately vacated and remanded that Alaska opinion, the Louisiana Case perhaps best represents the current state of the law. Likely anticipating challenges to its reasoning based on the earlier decision in the Alaska case, the Louisiana court noted the general recognition by courts in the Fifth Circuit that the executive branch has “inherent authority to reconsider its decisions” unless specifically withheld by Congress. The Louisiana court then provided two examples of statutes incorporating such specific restrictions on the president’s power. Unlike the earlier case from Alaska that required an explicit grant of authority from Congress to the president in order to reverse prior withdrawals, the Louisiana case would find the power for the president to reverse such earlier withdrawals unless that right was taken away by Congress.

Other courts could soon weigh in on this issue, including a federal court in Texas that is presiding over a similar challenge to the Biden Memoranda which presents the same argument regarding the “from time to time” language that was instrumental in the Louisiana Case.⁵ Meanwhile, a federal court in Alaska is presiding over challenges to the January 20, 2025 Executive Order 14148 that President Donald Trump signed to revoke the Biden Memoranda. In this case, the plaintiffs (Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, and other environmental non-governmental organizations) claim that Section 12(a) of OCSLA does not authorize the reversal of prior withdrawal decisions and that President Trump’s actions violated the separation of powers doctrine.

For now, the Louisiana Case vindicates a reading of the OCSLA that preserves presidential power to reverse prior withdrawals by the same or prior presidents.  The declaratory judgment issued by the court that the Biden Memoranda were “unlawful” invalidates the withdrawals from the time of their adoption. Should one of the other pending cases result in a conflicting ruling that would reject President Trump’s authority to reverse the Biden Memoranda or hold that the Biden Memoranda are not “unlawful,” review by an appellate court may be needed to establish a definitive interpretation of this statute.

We will continue to monitor developments related to offshore oil & gas leasing. Please reach out to your Vinson & Elkins team to discuss this ongoing litigation and its implications for your business.

¹ See Memorandum Ruling at 15, Louisiana v. Biden, Case No. 2:25-cv-71 (W.D. La. Oct. 2, 2025).

² See id. at 14–15.

³ See id.

⁴ The district court referred to the Forest Service Organic Administration Act of 1897, the Pickett Act of 1910, and a 1935 act pertaining to the use of the Rio Grande. League of Conservation Voters v. Trump, 363 F. Supp. 3d 1013, 1026 (D. Alaska 2019).

⁵ See Complaint at 2–3, 11–16, Texas v. Biden, Case No. 9:25-cv-10 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2025).